ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2022
A narrative review on the development of the ethical review mode of multicenter clinical trials in China.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality of Drug Clinical Trials in China: A Mixed Methods Research.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Ethical considerations for researchers developing and testing minimal-risk devices.Nature communications · 2023Article
- A study on the normative path of ethics review in China: based on the perspective of Panopticism.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Adopting AI in medical ethics review: A configurational fsQCA study of practitioners' willingness.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: The number of new drug clinical trials in China is surging, and ethics review played an important part in clinical trials. However, there are certain problems of ethical review in China. This review aims to conduct a review to propose recommendations of an ethical review mode for multicenter clinical trials and ultimately contribute to improving the ethics review mechanism and the efficiency. Methods: A literature review, publication research and interpretation of the related governmental policies and requirements in China were conducted to collect available information for analysis of the current situation in terms of the various ethical review modes for multicenter clinical research. The literatures and information were searched and selected from national and international database and related governance website by following some inclusion and exclusion criteria. And a comparation with the relevant practical experience in the USA was conducted to support the proposing of recommendations to China by referring to some successful practice in the USA. Key Content and Findings: China has undergone several stages of development. The most traditional and least efficient model is institutional review boards (IRBs) review, which is most commonly used. After IRB review mode, other modes such as central IRB and single IRB review have emerged, which have improved the efficiency of ethical review. However, multiple challenges exist like, no clear definition of regulatory responsibilities and the consensus is not easy to be made due to the gap of interpretation and the unbalanced development on ethic review system from Chinese hospitals. Conclusions: The multicenter ethical review should adopt the conditional 'approval' mode of the leading site's ethical review decisions, gradually establish a single IRB review and select the best ethics committee. Regional ethics committees can gradually take responsibility for the primary review in the multicenter ethics review model and ultimately contribute to improving the mechanism and efficiency of the ethics review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.